Canonsphere

CSINv3
Category

Issue 2

Category

This short article has been written by Vidhan Dixit. He is a law student at National Law University Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.

ABSTRACT

Yatra Online’s merger with a U.S.-based SPAC, where SPACs can be defined as Special Purpose Acquisition Companies, are shell entities that raise capital through an Initial Public Offering (IPO) to later merge with or acquire private companies, enabling them to go public without a traditional IPO. Often termed “blank check companies,” SPACs gained prominence in India with deals like Yatra Online’s merger with a U.S.-based SPAC in 2016. However, their rapid growth has raised investor protection concerns due to past fraud cases, such as Nikola Corp. and Akazoo, which misled investors about business prospects. Regulatory bodies like the U.S. SEC and the UK’s FCA have introduced stricter disclosure norms and safeguards, including mandatory escrow accounts and shareholder approvals, to mitigate risks.

In India, SPACs face legal hurdles under the Companies Act, 2013, which mandates business commencement within a year, conflicting with SPACs’ typical 1-2 year target acquisition timeline. SEBI’s stringent IPO eligibility criteria, such as minimum tangible assets and profitability requirements, further complicate SPAC listings. Additionally, tax implications under the Income Tax Act, 1961, pose challenges for cross-border De-SPAC transactions.

Despite these challenges, SPACs offer a faster route to public markets, prompting global regulators to refine frameworks balancing innovation and investor protection. For India to harness SPACs effectively, amendments in corporate, securities, and tax laws are essential, alongside enhanced transparency and investor education to prevent fraud and ensure sustainable growth in this evolving financial instrument.

KEYWORDS- SPAC (Special Purpose Acquisition Companies), Investor Protection, Regulatory Challenges,  De-SPAC Transactions,  SEBI Guideline

Powered By EmbedPress

This short article has been written by Adhya Gupta. She is a Law student at the University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun

ABSTRACT

On June 3, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) issued Circular No. SEBI/HO/MIRSD/MIRSD‑PoD/P/CIR/2025/82, mandating a streamlined, automated mechanism for the invocation and sale of pledged securities as margin collateral by brokers and trading members. The move addresses persistent inefficiencies wherein invoked securities frequently remained unsold in brokers’ demat accounts, detracting from the intended objective of generating immediate liquidity through invocation. Under the new framework, client‑initiated sales of pledged securities will be executed via a single instruction, “pledge release for early pay‑in”, enabling immediate pledge release and settlement without manual intervention.

When a broker initiates the invocation, the corresponding shares, excluding units of unlisted mutual funds, will be immediately blocked from the client’s demat account for early pay-in. A clear and auditable trail of this transaction will be maintained in the broker’s margin pledge account. A bespoke “invocation cum redemption” process will apply to unlisted mutual fund units, allowing automatic redemption post‑invocation. Additionally, in scenarios where client trading accounts are frozen or restricted post‑pledge, the invoked securities will be moved to the broker’s demat account. and sold under proprietary codes on the same day to prevent accumulation.

These provisions, set to take effect from September 5, 2025, are backed by depositories’ obligation to provide clear operating guidelines by July 1, 2025. Through automation and integration of invocation and sale processes, SEBI aims to eliminate manual delays, enhance operational efficiency, reduce systemic risks, and strengthen investor protection in margin‑based transactions.

Keywords: Margin pledge automation; Invocation‑sale integration; Early pay‑in; Client‑security protection; Invocation cum redemption

Powered By EmbedPress

This Short article has been written by Anavi Nagpal and co- authored by Ashish Singh. Anavi and Ashish are law students at at Northcap University.

Abstract

In a rapidly digital globalized economy continuously eroding the traditional boundaries of commerce, the principle of territoriality in intellectual property (IP) law is acquiring newfound significance and presenting increasingly complex legal challenges. This article explores the area of lawless law – that is, of cross-country litigation in intellectual property – through the lens of the Indian legal system. Growing tensions between domestic sovereign national statutes and modern online commerce, which is essentially borderless, challenge existing territorial frameworks and regulations, as many infringements occur instantaneously across countries. This article examines India’s changing statutory and constitutional framework and the transformative legal reasoning of its courts in some complex cross-border digital infringement cases, including the use of the “effects doctrine.” The experiences of these courts in dealing with cross-border online forums are significant because they provide insight into approaches for digital intellectual property regimes.

The article outlines a changing landscape in jurisdictional conflict of laws and enforcement options through carefully analyzing seminal case law and existing international cooperation agreements. It identifies the persistent and daunting challenges to effective resolution, including considerations of the practical difficulties of enforcing a foreign judgment in a cross-border context, and complicated conflicts of law analysis in cases applying substantive law. The article addresses a new frontier of emerging judicial and technology-based solutions, i.e., “dynamic injunctions” to counteract the challenge of multi-headed infringing websites, and blockchain’s significance in establishing an immutable IP registry. The article concludes with a substantive argument in favor of a future-focused, multifaceted approach that promotes selective legislative measures (including ratifying key WIPO treaties), capacity-building (i.e., judicial education and IP benches), and a more proactive approach to international fora as well as an influential role for India in international negotiations. The article articulates that a holistic approach is necessary to provide a predictable, effective, and fair legal environment to protect Indian innovative work in the global architecture, while also providing certainty for foreign right holders in India, ultimately signaling India’s importance in knowledge economies.

Powered By EmbedPress

This Long article has been written by Vaibhav Yadav and co- authored by Shivam Pandey. Vaibhav and Shivam are law students Gujarat National Law University.

ABSTRACT

In an increasingly fractured global economic order, governments are reasserting their influence over markets through tariffs, subsidies, and other forms of trade protectionism. This resurgence of state-driven economic strategies presents a critical challenge for competition law regimes traditionally designed to regulate private anti-competitive behavior. The complex interplay between state-imposed trade barriers and market competition raises important questions about the scope and limits of antitrust jurisdiction in addressing market distortions originating not from firms, but from states themselves. This paper investigates the evolving dynamics between competition law and protectionist policies, focusing on how tariffs and subsidies impact market efficiency, consumer welfare, and the competitive neutrality of firms operating in transnational markets. Drawing on recent case studies, including WTO disputes and cross-border antitrust investigations, the article critically examines whether current competition law frameworks—both domestic and supranational—are adequately equipped to address these state-induced distortions. It also explores the legal and jurisdictional limits faced by antitrust authorities in regulating conduct that is sanctioned or incentivized by sovereign governments. By mapping the blurred boundary between legitimate state policy and market manipulation, this research proposes a reconceptualization of competition law that integrates principles of global economic governance, fairness, and policy coherence. The paper ultimately advocates for a more nuanced, hybrid regulatory approach that respects state sovereignty while safeguarding competitive markets in a multipolar trade environment.

Powered By EmbedPress

This Long article has been written by Sreenidhi K.R. and co-authored by Chanchal Dagur. Sreenidhi and Chanchal are law students at CMR University School of Legal Studies, Bangalore.

ABSTRACT

Individual autonomy has been profoundly transformed by the digital age, leading to privacy being a personal concern as well as a constitutional imperative. This study explores the origins and development of the Indian right to privacy by analyzing the Supreme Court’s constitutional interpretation of that right. The tension between state surveillance, corporate data capitalism, and individual liberty lies at the core of this research. The paper navigates through the growing influence of data-hungry tech corporations, the blurred lines between consent and coercion in digital spaces, and the state’s evolving role as both protector and violator of privacy. Special emphasis is placed on the Right to Be Forgotten, which has emerged as a critical digital right in the Indian context, particularly in cases where past records continue to haunt acquitted individuals or outdated data undermines reputational autonomy. By drawing from comparative global jurisprudence, including the European Union’s GDPR, France’s CNIL, and Germany’s doctrine of informational self-determination, the paper positions India within the broader matrix of international privacy norms. It examines how constitutional interpretation, in accordance with transnational principles, can reinforce democratic values in a world that is driven by surveillance. 

This paper asserts that privacy encompasses more than just the right to be left alone; it encompasses the right to control one’s digital life. Through judicial activism and constitutional reinterpretation, India has an opportunity to build a privacy regime that protects not just personal data, but the very dignity, agency, and democratic integrity of its citizens in the 21st century.

Powered By EmbedPress

This Long article has been written by Dhatrii Singh and co- authored by Adv. Akshat Vatsya. Dhatri is a Law student at Gitarattan International Business School, Indraprastha University, Akshat is a student at UPES, Dehradun. 

ABSTRACT

This paper aims to analyze the dynamics of regulating deep fake technology in India, is state that is currently submerged by the flow of synthetic media generated by AI which makes it extremely hard to differentiate the real from fake. Deepfakes produced by GAN are dangerous to person’s reputation, the public and democratic processes, considering the example of the fake Rashmika Mandanna’s video or political campaigns in 2024 Lok Sabha elections. The paper outlines the technological advances of deep fakes, the subjective and psychological impacts associated with them, as well as the current upsurge in their use, especially in India; defamatory cases and electoral interference. It especially discusses the Indian laws that address information technology and includes the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 which the author regards as insufficient as a result of their ambiguity, reactive approach, and inability to account for deepfake-related crimes. This paper, focuses on how free speech as provided by Article 19(1)(a) has to be restricted due to the grounds under Article 19(2) by the aid of cases such as Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015).

Therefore, the rationale of the paper is to identify measures that will help the government regulate deepfakes in a way that does not infringe on the freedom of speech rights of the people. At the same time reduce the spread of fake news that has been notorious in India. It uses a benchmarking research methodology which aims at comparing indian circumstances to the global occurrences from international models like EU’s Digital Service Act & AI Act, U.S state-level disclosure laws, or stringent Chinese content control to extract the insights suited for India’s socio-cultural and digital landscape. The media literacy addressed here includes technology-based systems (AI systems for detection, blockchain, and watermarking), governmental and academic-industry partnerships, and informational campaign. It actually presents a comprehensive approach that involves the use of laws, technology and increased awareness to ensure that democracy is upheld while at the same time ensuring that security has been enhanced. To that end, this study focuses on enforcement issues and culture, which would help the policy maker to provide direction on promoting innovation and safeguarding the citizenry from the dangers of deep fake news.

Powered By EmbedPress

This long article has been written by Nandani KumarI. She is a law student at Usha Martin University, Jharkhand. 

ABSTRACT

Intellectual property law (IPR) are legal privileges granted to a person, individual or an organization for the inventions of the mind, including inventions, symbols, names, images, artistic works and designs used in commerce. The roots of intellectual property law can be traced back to the 18th century, with a significant development occurring in 1790 when the United States enacted its first patent statute. This marked a pivotal moment in the formal recognition and legal protection of intellectual property rights. While the particular legal structures for Intellectual property safeguarding varies internationally, most jurisdictions offer safeguarding under major categories such as, trademark, copyright and patent laws. Digital marketplaces frequently involve the trade of software applications, multimedia content, e-learning modules, digital art, and private systems all of which are inherently tied to Intellectual property. These digital products derive Their value primarily from the Intellectual property embedded in them, making sturdy legal safeguarding indispensable.E-commerce platforms must implement comprehensive Intellectual property rights (IPR) policies to manage licensing, prevent violation, and facilitate legitimate trade.

Powered By EmbedPress

This Long article has been written by Kavya Agrawal. She is a law student at Maharashtra National Law University, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. 

ABSTRACT

In the digital age, Cyber terrorism has become a serious and very dynamic threat to both national and international security. Cyber terrorism basically means the use of information technology to overthrow, harm, or compel governments and society, in contrast to traditional terrorism which basically depends on physical violence. With potentially disastrous results, it majorly targets critical infrastructure, including communication networks, transportation systems, water systems, and power grids. There are many events that have happened in this regard. Some notable events like the 2016 Bangladesh Bank heist and the 2015 cyber-attack on Ukraine’s power grid demonstrate how these attacks have the ability to disrupt financial institutions and paralyze vital utilities.

This article basically assesses current legal frameworks that deal with the issue of cyber terrorism and looks at its complex effects. The 2001 Budapest Convention on Cyber-crime encourages collaboration on a global scale but does not provide a clear definition of cyber terrorism. Moreover, even the necessity of protecting vital infrastructure from terrorist threats in cyberspace is emphasized in UN Resolution 2341 (2017). However, several nations have also put laws into place at the national level. Although there is still a problem with definitional clarity, cyber terrorism is addressed under India’s Information Technology Act, 2000, specifically Section 66F, which was included by the 2008 amendment. Cyber related offences are also included in the USA PATRIOT Act’s more comprehensive counterterrorism measures. Despite these initiatives, different countries continue to have different definitions and legal interpretations. 

The article also examines the main and necessary obstacles to a successful international response to cyber terrorism. The major and most significant of these is the lack of generally agreed-upon definition, which ultimately results in inconsistent legal interpretations and gaps in enforcement. These are the discrepancies which undermine international cooperation in combating cyber threats. The article suggests crucial measures to close these gaps. First, for legal systems to be consistent, a widely recognized definition of cyberterrorism must be established. Second, a specific international convention that deals with cyber terrorism is desperately needed in order to facilitate collaboration on extradition, evidence exchange, and cooperative investigations. Third, for successful enforcement, it is essential to invest in cyber forensic infrastructure and develop procedural guidelines for managing digital evidence.

To sum up, cyber terrorism presents a distinct and significant threat to both national and international stability. An anticipatory, rights-respecting, and well-coordinated legal reaction is essential. The legislation must change proactively to safeguard the digital future in a time when cyber-attacks have the power to paralyze entire countries.

Powered By EmbedPress

This Long article has been written by Ananya P Saji and co-authored by Shreyanshi Tiwari. Ananya and Shreyansh are law students at Christ(Deemed To Be University).

ABSTRACT

The article provides an in-depth evaluation of the Competition Law in India, outlining its evolution from the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Policies (MRTP) Act, 1969, to the enactment of the Competition Act, 2002. It begins by putting forward the concept of the competition and highlighting various international perspectives on competition policies, showcasing shared objectives among various jurisdictions. The paper further emphasizes the inadequacies of the MRTP regime in the era of liberalised economy, the impact of economic reforms, and the importance of the Raghavan Committee in shaping the current legal framework. 

The institutions that are responsible for enforcing the competition law in India such as Competition Commission of India (CCI), Director General (DG), National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), the Supreme Court are sidewise examined along with the key provisions, including anti-competitive agreements, horizontal agreements or cartels, vertical agreements, mergers and acquisitions, abuse of dominant position and so on.

It illustrates the shortcomings of conventional regulatory mechanisms such as platform dominance, data monopolies, and algorithmic collusion. The central issue addressed is the current gap between the conventional competition laws and the new challenges generated by a technology-driven economy in India. It further sheds light on the Competition law in the digital market.

The results indicate that India has made meaningful progress in converging with international best practice but has some gaps in enforcement effectiveness, procedural transparency, and the regulation of digital markets. The findings highlight the imperative for proactive measures such as sectoral regulations, upgradation, and stronger investigative powers to protect market competition during the 21st century.

Powered By EmbedPress

This short blog has been written by Dr. Sreenidhi KR and co-authored by Puja Dagur. Sreenidhi and Puja are law students at CMR School of Legal Studies, Bangalore.

ABSTRACT 

This paper explores the intersection of law, technology, and constitutional interpretation through an analysis of landmark judgments delivered by the Supreme Court of India. As technological advancements such as biometric data collection, internet governance, surveillance mechanisms, and artificial intelligence reshape societal structures, the judiciary faces the challenge of balancing innovation with constitutional principles. Through cases like Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (privacy and Aadhaar), Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (freedom of speech online), and Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (internet shutdowns), the Court has demonstrated a dynamic approach to interpreting constitutional rights in light of evolving technological realities. Key themes include the application of proportionality, the safeguarding of fundamental rights in digital spaces, and addressing legislative gaps in regulating emerging technologies. This abstract highlights the judiciary’s critical role in ensuring that technological progress aligns with the core tenets of the Indian Constitution, offering insights into the challenges and implications of this evolving legal landscape.

Powered By EmbedPress